A picture is worth a thousand words: Children's representations of family as indicators of early attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To ascertain whether attachment representations at age 7 are related to early attachment behaviour, family drawings of 123 7-year-olds of known infant attachment status (25 avoidant, 80 secure, 18 resistant) were scored in four ways. Three of these were based in previous attachment research and one was based on a clinical method. The attachment-based coding schemes included specific markers for each attachment pattern (Kaplan & Main, 1985), global ratings (Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1997) and efforts to classify each drawing as belonging to one of the three primary infant attachment groups (secure, avoidant, resistant). In the clinical scheme, children who had been resistant infants were distinguished from the others by use of overlapping and encapsulated figures. For the attachment based schemes, although individual markers were not successful in discriminating attachment groups, the more global approaches (aggregation of markers, global rating scales and judgments of attachment classification) succeeded in this task. In regression analyses controlling for concurrent child and parent measures, infant attachment did not make a significant contribution to predicting insecurity markers in drawings, although child current emotional functioning did. These findings linking attachment relationships with later representations of family relationships were in accord with the conception that avoidant attachment strategies de-emphasize intimate relationships, while resistant attachment strategies are preoccupied with close relationships. These links are most evident in global interpretive strategies rather than those that rely on specific markers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".